Re: ZULU - On Bluray ( UK )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
Screengrab's, however they've been obtained, are not representative of the final product when several people say that the very stills you are using don't actually look like the film on playback, you know when they're actually watching the film for enjoyment, rather than on artifact critique mode.
|
Please understand I have been past 'what other people say' many years ago, after several painful experiences where I believed 'other people' and thought they knew what they were talking about, bought the product and regretted it ever since. They did not know what they were talking about. Or put it another way, their viewing conditions, personal tolerance levels for artifacts and their experience with artifacts were simply too different from mine to be helpful to me. You don't need 'other people' once you have done the homework and understand how stills and video at 24fps relate to each other on your system with your viewing conditions. The same is valid for you. If you have found out that the stills don't tell you what you see on your system, by all means ignore them. But don't tell me they don't show me what's on the disc and that the artifacts are not there or irrelevant or whatever. I know what film looks like and what such transfers look like and what they could look like instead.
Quote:
Given that you also believe "Baraka", widely acclaimed as one of the finest looking BD's to date by just about everyone who has reviewed it, to be an EE travesty speaks volumes about your opinions.
|
I did not call the transfer of Baraka a travesty. But the EE is a fact and that I don't appreciate this kind of video look for (any) film sources is too.
Quote:
EE and dnr can be abused, and in the case of Patton, amongst others, it has been. But in this case it hasn't.
|
If you mean Zulu then I have to disagree. Anything that changes the texture of film like this without approval of the film makers is an abuse of the digital tools available. The same way it's abusive to change words in literal texts without the author's permission or painting over pantings after the painter has finished them.
If you mean Baraka then I have to disagree again. Adding white halos to high contrast edges is an abuse of sharpening tools if your aim is to make a film like transfer of superior quality, unlike anything released so far (as the Baraka BD PR machine claimed they did).
Quote:
All you are doing is making the very people who might be able to do something about genuine technical faults on titles, not bother to read these kind of threads or forums in general due to hyperbole and hysteria about the slightest thing wrong.
M |
I say little to nothing about 95% of all releases. When I'm supposed to shut up about the 5% others which are the worst offenders or the least understandable in the context, including favourite films of mine, sites like this become useless water holes for bla bla instead of tools to get messages across so future product avoids the pitfalls. If well founded criticism in itself means responsible people will stop listening and prefer to gloat about all the good reviews instead then the only conclusion can be to send a message they can't ignore: No sales, no profit. Maybe that gets their attention again. I don't expect that to happen, though. Videophiles are a tiny minority and the only real hope is that the film makers themeselves see to it that their work reaches the discs as intended, and that the situation is reconsidered in time as better mastering procedures are available and more people are serious about home cinema and the screen sizes and viewing habits that come with it change.
Of all released discs the majority looks good or better than good. There is no current crisis of quality. But on some titles things really went wrong and it must be said so clearly.
